Further Reading

Tyler Barriss, a 25-year-old from South Los Angeles, was taken into custody Friday night, according to the local ABC News affiliate. (ABC also notes that "Glendale police arrested a 22-year-old man with the same name for making bomb threats to KABC-TV" back in 2015.) NBC News, speaking to unnamed local "sources" in LA, says that Barriss "had been living at a transitional recovery center."

Barriss is alleged to have called in a lengthy threat to Wichita police on Thursday night after a Call of Duty game in which two teammates got into an altercation over a $1.50 wager. Screenshots posted to various Twitter accounts show the dispute escalating. Shortly thereafter, the Wichita police received a call alleging that someone at that address had killed his father, taken his family hostage, poured gasoline around the home, and was ready to light it on fire. Cops descended on the area and cordoned it off. When 28-year-old Andrew Finch opened the front door of his home to see why all the lights were flashing outside, he was shot and killed.

A Twitter account called "SWAuTistic" took credit for the swatting but then just as quickly denied any responsibility for the death. On Thursday night, after the shooting, SWAuTistic wrote, "I DIDNT GET ANYONE KILLED BECAUSE I DIDNT DISCHARGE A WEAPON AND BEING A SWAT MEMBER ISNT MY PROFESSION." His Twitter account was suspended soon after.

The man claiming to be behind SWAuTistic gave an interview on Friday to the YouTube show "Drama Alert," in which he explained what allegedly happened. According to this account, SWAuTistic was "sitting in the library" and "minding my own business" when he was contacted by an irate Call of Duty player who had just gotten in a dispute with another player. The first player wanted the second player "swatted." Would SWAuTistic take care of it?

"Sure, I love swatting kids who think that nothing's going to happen," SWAuTistic recounted. He followed his target on social media, and the target eventually egged him on by providing a real-world (but inaccurate) address in Wichita.

A 911 call in Wichita

What happened next was broken down on Friday by the Wichita police in a press conference, which you can watch online. According to the officer giving the briefing, a threatening call came in to City Hall at around 6:15pm local time. The caller said he had shot his dad in the head and was holding his mother and brother in the closet. He had a black handgun and wanted to kill himself. The call apparently continued for a full 20 minutes, even as police dispatch was looped in and officers headed to the scene.

Further Reading

Once there, police surrounded the Finch residence. Andrew Finch opened the door, saw police cars all over the place, and heard a police officer with a drawn weapon begin to shout at him: "Walk this way!" (You can see the whole ghastly incident, as captured on police cameras at the scene, along with the 911 call that began it, on the Wichita Police Facebook page. The camera footage comes at the end.)

Finch appears confused and drops his hands, then a police spotlight shines on him, and he appears to raise his hands again. In the middle of a police officer shouting, "Walk this way!" a second time, a single shot rings out, killing Finch.

According to Friday's Wichita police briefing, an officer thought Finch had reached for his "waistband" and then raised his hand again, potentially carrying a gun and posing a threat which needed to be eliminated. Finch died almost immediately, while his mother and other residents of the house were taken outside, handcuffed, and taken to the police station for interviews.

The Wichita Police argue that you have to understand the officers' state of mind here. The 911 call from SWAuTistic had not simply been a one-off; it was a long and continuing call with escalating threats. For instance, at 6:44pm SWAuTistic said he had poured gasoline around the home and was thinking about lighting it; Finch was shot at 6:43pm, just as these further threats were being made.

The Wichita police briefer repeatedly put the full blame for what happened on SWAuTistic, saying that "the irresponsible actions of a prankster put people and lives at risk" and that "due to the actions of a prankster, we have an innocent victim." (Finch's mother had a different view of the police actions, telling the local paper, "What gives the cops the right to open fire? Why didn't they give him the same warning they gave us? That cop murdered my son over a false report.")

Wichita detectives followed leads Thursday night, including those from "social media," and the LAPD arrested Barriss on Friday afternoon.

“Bomb threats are more fun”

Before the arrest, security reporter Brian Krebs was able to get in touch with the person behind the SWAuTistic account. According to Krebs, SWAuTistic "said he's been the victim of swatting attempts himself and that this was the reason he decided to start swatting others." SWAuTistic also provided a reason why he was willing to make random threatening calls on behalf of aggrieved online gamers: "Bomb threats are more fun and cooler than swats in my opinion and I should have just stuck to that... But I began making $ doing some swat requests.”

21-5405. Involuntary manslaughter. (a) Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being committed:

(1) Recklessly;

(2) in the commission of, or attempt to commit, or flight from any felony, other than an inherently dangerous felony as defined in K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5402, and amendments thereto, that is enacted for the protection of human life or safety or a misdemeanor that is enacted for the protection of human life or safety, including acts described in K.S.A. 8-1566 and subsection (a) of 8-1568, and amendments thereto, but excluding the acts described in K.S.A. 8-1567, and amendments thereto;

(3) in the commission of, or attempt to commit, or flight from an act described in K.S.A. 8-1567, and amendments thereto; or

The similarity between the situations is that the consequences of the illegal act were greater than planned, but because the illegal act lead to those consequences, the original actor is ultimately liable (completely independent of the officer's liability).

I see the distinction you want to make between the cases, but I don't believe it's recognized in the law, nor do I think it should be in this case.

IMHO the distinction is important. After all there has to be a limit to this "look what you made me do" notion, especially as it applies to police killings of innocents. The facts of this swatting case seems like a good candidate to establish that limit.

So do you agree with the charge of involuntary manslaughter, or not?

Only because it is not the felony murder or 1st or 2nd degree murder or murder-for-hire my ardent fans here were so sure of. I'll take it because it vindicates my ramblings in this thread, albeit, only partly.

I never said the swatter should get off scot-free but murder seemed a bit of a stretch given the facts.

Not really interested in the legal arguments presented, just wanted to say: It's reasonable for someone else to say you 'won the thread', usually in response to a particularly insightful or funny comment. But declaring yourself that you win it makes you sound like a complete and utter twat.

He sounded like a complete and utter twat long before he claimed to have "won."

An interesting thing about filing charges, is that sometimes DAs go for a lesser charge because they think it'll be easier to prove/win. So, even if a case could technically be considered murder, sometimes the DA will go for manslaughter instead.

Homicide is the act of one human killing another. A homicide requires only a volitional act by another person that results in death, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm

Regarding "felony murder," aka a death that occurs due to the actions of a felony, there are two differentiating theories, "agency theory," and "proximate cause theory". Both are used in different jurisdictions .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

Quote:

There are two schools of thought concerning whose actions can cause the defendant to be guilty of felony murder. Jurisdictions that hold to the agency theory admit only deaths caused by the agents of the crime. Jurisdictions that use the proximate cause theory include any death, even if caused by a bystander or the police, provided that it meets one of several proximate cause tests to determine if the chain of events between the offence and the death was short enough to have legally caused the death

Not really interested in the legal arguments presented, just wanted to say: It's reasonable for someone else to say you 'won the thread', usually in response to a particularly insightful or funny comment. But declaring yourself that you win it makes you sound like a complete and utter twat.

I imagine it's especially awkward once you realize you were wrong, too.

The only thing he's said in this whole thread that's correct is that he's not a lawyer.

The posters logic and argumentation skills in applying Summers v Tice was more than you could ever muster and I appreciated it.

I mean look at you in this thread, reduced to a fusillade of copy-n-paste tit-for-tats.

Not really interested in the legal arguments presented, just wanted to say: It's reasonable for someone else to say you 'won the thread', usually in response to a particularly insightful or funny comment. But declaring yourself that you win it makes you sound like a complete and utter twat.

He sounded like a complete and utter twat long before he claimed to have "won."

An interesting thing about filing charges, is that sometimes DAs go for a lesser charge because they think it'll be easier to prove/win. So, even if a case could technically be considered murder, sometimes the DA will go for manslaughter instead.

Homicide is the act of one human killing another. A homicide requires only a volitional act by another person that results in death, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm

Regarding "felony murder," aka a death that occurs due to the actions of a felony, there are two differentiating theories, "agency theory," and "proximate cause theory". Both are used in different jurisdictions .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

Quote:

There are two schools of thought concerning whose actions can cause the defendant to be guilty of felony murder. Jurisdictions that hold to the agency theory admit only deaths caused by the agents of the crime. Jurisdictions that use the proximate cause theory include any death, even if caused by a bystander or the police, provided that it meets one of several proximate cause tests to determine if the chain of events between the offence and the death was short enough to have legally caused the death

Involuntary manslaughter in California occurs when one person kills another unintentionally..... while committing a crime that is not an inherently dangerous California felony

Good choice for the DA because nobody will ever believe making 911 calls are inherently dangerous.

I made a mistake in my post. He was arrested in CA but charged in KS. shelbystripes wrote up a good summation of KS laws. Also, he wasn't charged with "making a 911 call," but with "making a false alarm," which is a felony.

The similarity between the situations is that the consequences of the illegal act were greater than planned, but because the illegal act lead to those consequences, the original actor is ultimately liable (completely independent of the officer's liability).

I see the distinction you want to make between the cases, but I don't believe it's recognized in the law, nor do I think it should be in this case.

IMHO the distinction is important. After all there has to be a limit to this "look what you made me do" notion, especially as it applies to police killings of innocents. The facts of this swatting case seems like a good candidate to establish that limit.

So do you agree with the charge of involuntary manslaughter, or not?

Only because it is not the felony murder or 1st or 2nd degree murder or murder-for-hire my ardent fans here were so sure of. I'll take it because it vindicates my ramblings in this thread, albeit, only partly.

I never said the swatter should get off scot-free but murder seemed a bit of a stretch given the facts.

Not really interested in the legal arguments presented, just wanted to say: It's reasonable for someone else to say you 'won the thread', usually in response to a particularly insightful or funny comment. But declaring yourself that you win it makes you sound like a complete and utter twat.

He sounded like a complete and utter twat long before he claimed to have "won."

An interesting thing about filing charges, is that sometimes DAs go for a lesser charge because they think it'll be easier to prove/win. So, even if a case could technically be considered murder, sometimes the DA will go for manslaughter instead.

Homicide is the act of one human killing another. A homicide requires only a volitional act by another person that results in death, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm

Regarding "felony murder," aka a death that occurs due to the actions of a felony, there are two differentiating theories, "agency theory," and "proximate cause theory". Both are used in different jurisdictions .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

Quote:

There are two schools of thought concerning whose actions can cause the defendant to be guilty of felony murder. Jurisdictions that hold to the agency theory admit only deaths caused by the agents of the crime. Jurisdictions that use the proximate cause theory include any death, even if caused by a bystander or the police, provided that it meets one of several proximate cause tests to determine if the chain of events between the offence and the death was short enough to have legally caused the death

Not really interested in the legal arguments presented, just wanted to say: It's reasonable for someone else to say you 'won the thread', usually in response to a particularly insightful or funny comment. But declaring yourself that you win it makes you sound like a complete and utter twat.

I imagine it's especially awkward once you realize you were wrong, too.

The only thing he's said in this whole thread that's correct is that he's not a lawyer.

The posters logic and argumentation skills in applying Summers v Tice was more than you could ever muster and I appreciated it.

I mean look at you in this thread, reduced to a fusillade of copy-n-paste tit-for-tats.

shelbystripes, please stop spamming the thread. You've posted the same sentence more than 10 times. It isn't adding anything to the conversation. It isn't helping convince or inform anybody. I'm sure everyone reading this thread understands that you dislike and disagree with psd. Saying it over and over again isn't useful or helpful. It's juvenile, and annoying.

shelbystripes, please stop spamming the thread. You've posted the same sentence more than 10 times. It isn't adding anything to the conversation. It isn't helping convince or inform anybody. I'm sure everyone reading this thread understands that you dislike and disagree with psd. Saying it over and over again isn't useful or helpful. It's juvenile, and annoying.

When there is a conversation with more to add, I will gladly participate. There hasn't been a real conversation of value for many pages now. There's just been one person repeating the same mindless drivel over and over, and a bunch of other posters trying in futility to explain to this person that they clearly do not understand how the law works.

So clearly I'm not interrupting much. I'm just becoming more efficient at this conversation over time, since it really has gotten repetitive.

shelbystripes, please stop spamming the thread. You've posted the same sentence more than 10 times. It isn't adding anything to the conversation. It isn't helping convince or inform anybody. I'm sure everyone reading this thread understands that you dislike and disagree with psd. Saying it over and over again isn't useful or helpful. It's juvenile, and annoying.

All due respect, shelby isn't the one filling this thread with redundant nonsense.

shelbystripes, please stop spamming the thread. You've posted the same sentence more than 10 times. It isn't adding anything to the conversation. It isn't helping convince or inform anybody. I'm sure everyone reading this thread understands that you dislike and disagree with psd. Saying it over and over again isn't useful or helpful. It's juvenile, and annoying.

All due respect, shelby isn't the one filling this thread with redundant nonsense.

Presumably you're referring to psd. You think psd is saying nonsense. That maybe so, but shelby quotes everything that psd says, and adds the exact same response to every post. He is quoting, and thus amplifying the stuff that he is trying to deride... and he says that it's "more efficient".

@shelbystripes, here's a tip for you: If you're trying to be efficient, just say nothing. You're right that there has been nothing of value for a couple of pages; but that's largely because you've filled half of it with quotes and arguments. Just let it go. Say nothing. Either the 'conversation' will just naturally die off, or maybe someone else will say something of value. Either way is better than what we have now.

In the article: "Finch appears confused and drops his hands, then a police spotlight shines on him, and he appears to raise his hands again. In the middle of a police officer shouting, "Walk this way!" a second time, a single shot rings out, killing Finch."

How do you know he "appears confused" - from where did you get that he "appears confused"? You can not see the look on his face in the video nor can you hear anything from him in the video. There are no indications of confusion in the video. There is what looks somewhat like a moment of hesitation before the hands go to the waist area.

if you watch the video frame by frame you can see one hand come up slightly before the other then the two hands come together in front of him at head eye level pointing at police. See the dark spot in front of him before the shot was fired, those are the two hands together in front of him (as they would be if one was holding a firearm). The first hand that comes up comes from the waist area, comes around in front of him still continuing to rise the other hands joins it then the two hands are together in front of him at hand eye level then stop pointing out at police for a second and do not continue to rise, then the shot is fired. The movement was deliberate.

He wasn't raising his hands again as in "hands up" as he initially did before lowering his hands then going to waist area. His hands did not come from his sides then straight up as he did initially, they came up then around in front of him and came together. In the video frame by frame you see a dark spot in front of him when the hands stop moving upwards, that's the two hands together in front of him against a lighter colored shirt that is illuminated by the spot light and it very plain to see. Its not until after the hands stop moving and are pointing out at police that the shot is fired.

Frame by frame the movements and stopping place for the hands (before the shot is fired) looks exactly like the quick reaction combat shooting position taught as part of the combat point shooting portion of defensive shooting courses taught to military, law enforcement, and in some courses available to civilians. Basically, In that course the method taught is used while moving (but can be used from a stand still position) and suddenly encountering a very close threat in front of you (thus 'point shooting'), your weapon is drawn quickly from the waist area holster or thigh holster and comes out in front of you into a two hand grasp and the eye blink of time it comes out in front of you and on the close threat target you fire.

In the article: "Finch appears confused and drops his hands, then a police spotlight shines on him, and he appears to raise his hands again. In the middle of a police officer shouting, "Walk this way!" a second time, a single shot rings out, killing Finch."

How do you know he "appears confused" - from where did you get that he "appears confused"? You can not see the look on his face in the video nor can you hear anything from him in the video. There are no indications of confusion in the video. There is what looks somewhat like a moment of hesitation before the hands go to the waist area.

if you watch the video frame by frame you can see one hand come up slightly before the other then the two hands come together in front of him at head eye level pointing at police. See the dark spot in front of him before the shot was fired, those are the two hands together in front of him (as they would be if one was holding a firearm). The first hand that comes up comes from the waist area, comes around in front of him still continuing to rise the other hands joins it then the two hands are together in front of him at hand eye level then stop pointing out at police for a second and do not continue to rise, then the shot is fired. The movement was deliberate.

He wasn't raising his hands again as in "hands up" as he initially did before lowering his hands then going to waist area. His hands did not come from his sides then straight up as he did initially, they came up then around in front of him and came together. In the video frame by frame you see a dark spot in front of him when the hands stop moving upwards, that's the two hands together in front of him against a lighter colored shirt that is illuminated by the spot light and it very plain to see. Its not until after the hands stop moving and are pointing out at police that the shot is fired.

Frame by frame the movements and stopping place for the hands (before the shot is fired) looks exactly like the quick reaction combat shooting position taught as part of the combat point shooting portion of defensive shooting courses taught to military, law enforcement, and in some courses available to civilians. Basically, In that course the method taught is used while moving (but can be used from a stand still position) and suddenly encountering a very close threat in front of you (thus 'point shooting'), your weapon is drawn quickly from the waist area holster or thigh holster and comes out in front of you into a two hand grasp and the eye blink of time it comes out in front of you and on the close threat target you fire.

So what you're saying is... you can't see enough detail to tell what's going on or his intentions... but you can clearly see that he motioned like he was pointing a gun... and that his intentions were deliberate... and that an unarmed civilian in the doorway of his own home was adopting a combat shooting position... with a gun he didn't have.

Yeah, that makes total sense. I'm so glad you were here to point it out to all of us who missed it!

Presumably you're referring to psd. You think psd is saying nonsense. That maybe so, but shelby quotes everything that psd says, and adds the exact same response to every post. He is quoting, and thus amplifying the stuff that he is trying to deride... and he says that it's "more efficient".

Well, it is. PSD is foolish enough to not comprehend that people were trying to explain the general concept of having more than one party be guilty of murder, and thus the fact that this single instance didn't result in a murder charge doesn't actually do anything to disprove the general legal concept that was trying to be explained.

I approve of dumbing it down for him. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and should probably listen and learn before trying to pat himself on the back about being "right" about something that multiple people had actually tried to explain before.

Quote:

@shelbystripes, here's a tip for you: If you're trying to be efficient, just say nothing. You're right that there has been nothing of value for a couple of pages; but that's largely because you've filled half of it with quotes and arguments. Just let it go. Say nothing. Either the 'conversation' will just naturally die off, or maybe someone else will say something of value. Either way is better than what we have now.

I disagree. You could always stop checking in on the thread, rather than telling other people what to do, if it bothers you that much.

Only because it is not the felony murder or 1st or 2nd degree murder or murder-for-hire my ardent fans here were so sure of.

How many people were "so sure" of that, exactly?

Many people were trying to use other examples to show you the general principle that both the cop and the swatter could be held liable, something you argued against repeatedly. I used felony murder to show you that there exists a legal concept where two people can be guilty of murder. Shelby tried to explain it using murder for hire, a concept you are STILL not getting from your masturbatory attempt to compliment yourself .

Honestly, it's a testament to how little you even bothered to process the arguments of others before insisting that they're wrong that you STILL don't understand why they were offered or why they refuted your argument at the time.

Hint: you stated back here that "[t]he essence of my argument is a police officers "intervening act" supersedes a swatters "original act" breaking the chain of causation for whatever death at the hands of the police officer because it is not inevitable that deploying a swat team must result in a death." (emphasis added).

However, despite your attempts to lash out like a child at the people trying to explain things to you, the "involuntary manslaughter" charge maintains the chain of causation. The cop's act didn't break the chain of causation. The fact that it's involuntary manslaughter and not murder is irrelevant to the thing that you yourself claimed was the essence of your argument. If the police officer's act "broke the chain of causation", they wouldn't have charged the swatter with anything related to the death. The fact that they charged him with something related to the death should tell anyone with even half a brain that they are arguing that he caused (at least in part) the death.

So, like Shelby has been saying... you are clearly unable to grasp how the law works. The very thing you think proves you right actually disproves your what you called the essence of your argument, genius.

shelbystripes, please stop spamming the thread. You've posted the same sentence more than 10 times. It isn't adding anything to the conversation. It isn't helping convince or inform anybody. I'm sure everyone reading this thread understands that you dislike and disagree with psd. Saying it over and over again isn't useful or helpful. It's juvenile, and annoying.

All due respect, shelby isn't the one filling this thread with redundant nonsense.

Presumably you're referring to psd. You think psd is saying nonsense. That maybe so, but shelby quotes everything that psd says, and adds the exact same response to every post. He is quoting, and thus amplifying the stuff that he is trying to deride... and he says that it's "more efficient".

@shelbystripes, here's a tip for you: If you're trying to be efficient, just say nothing. You're right that there has been nothing of value for a couple of pages; but that's largely because you've filled half of it with quotes and arguments. Just let it go. Say nothing. Either the 'conversation' will just naturally die off, or maybe someone else will say something of value. Either way is better than what we have now.

Only because it is not the felony murder or 1st or 2nd degree murder or murder-for-hire my ardent fans here were so sure of.

How many people were "so sure" of that, exactly?

Many people were trying to use other examples to show you the general principle that both the cop and the swatter could be held liable, something you argued against repeatedly. I used felony murder to show you that there exists a legal concept where two people can be guilty of murder. Shelby tried to explain it using murder for hire, a concept you are STILL not getting from your masturbatory attempt to compliment yourself .

Honestly, it's a testament to how little you even bothered to process the arguments of others before insisting that they're wrong that you STILL don't understand why they were offered or why they refuted your argument at the time.

Hint: you stated back here that "[t]he essence of my argument is a police officers "intervening act" supersedes a swatters "original act" breaking the chain of causation for whatever death at the hands of the police officer because it is not inevitable that deploying a swat team must result in a death." (emphasis added).

However, despite your attempts to lash out like a child at the people trying to explain things to you, the "involuntary manslaughter" charge maintains the chain of causation. The cop's act didn't break the chain of causation. The fact that it's involuntary manslaughter and not murder is irrelevant to the thing that you yourself claimed was the essence of your argument. If the police officer's act "broke the chain of causation", they wouldn't have charged the swatter with anything related to the death. The fact that they charged him with something related to the death should tell anyone with even half a brain that they are arguing that he caused (at least in part) the death.

So, like Shelby has been saying... you are clearly unable to grasp how the law works. The very thing you think proves you right actually disproves your what you called the essence of your argument, genius.

The charge of involuntary manslaughter does not mean the defense can no longer argue that the officers intervening act broke the chain of causation. IMHO, that argument is still at play and the defense should make that a centerpiece.

Ironically, the only thing off the table with the charge of involuntary manslaughter is the defendants intent to kill in making the prank call. I don't think the prosecution can ever bring that up now without prejudicing the jury.

shelbystripes, please stop spamming the thread. You've posted the same sentence more than 10 times. It isn't adding anything to the conversation. It isn't helping convince or inform anybody. I'm sure everyone reading this thread understands that you dislike and disagree with psd. Saying it over and over again isn't useful or helpful. It's juvenile, and annoying.

When there is a conversation with more to add, I will gladly participate. There hasn't been a real conversation of value for many pages now. There's just been one person repeating the same mindless drivel over and over, and a bunch of other posters trying in futility to explain to this person that they clearly do not understand how the law works.

So clearly I'm not interrupting much. I'm just becoming more efficient at this conversation over time, since it really has gotten repetitive.

Speak for yourself. There was a brief but useful exchange on how Summers v Tice can be applied to the facts of this swatting case. The quality of logic and level of argumentation skills demonstrated there was at least a couple of notches above the rest and makes this thread of 1000+ post well worth the read (minus your copy-n-paste tantrum).

Only because it is not the felony murder or 1st or 2nd degree murder or murder-for-hire my ardent fans here were so sure of.

How many people were "so sure" of that, exactly?

Many people were trying to use other examples to show you the general principle that both the cop and the swatter could be held liable, something you argued against repeatedly. I used felony murder to show you that there exists a legal concept where two people can be guilty of murder. Shelby tried to explain it using murder for hire, a concept you are STILL not getting from your masturbatory attempt to compliment yourself .

Honestly, it's a testament to how little you even bothered to process the arguments of others before insisting that they're wrong that you STILL don't understand why they were offered or why they refuted your argument at the time.

Hint: you stated back here that "[t]he essence of my argument is a police officers "intervening act" supersedes a swatters "original act" breaking the chain of causation for whatever death at the hands of the police officer because it is not inevitable that deploying a swat team must result in a death." (emphasis added).

However, despite your attempts to lash out like a child at the people trying to explain things to you, the "involuntary manslaughter" charge maintains the chain of causation. The cop's act didn't break the chain of causation. The fact that it's involuntary manslaughter and not murder is irrelevant to the thing that you yourself claimed was the essence of your argument. If the police officer's act "broke the chain of causation", they wouldn't have charged the swatter with anything related to the death. The fact that they charged him with something related to the death should tell anyone with even half a brain that they are arguing that he caused (at least in part) the death.

So, like Shelby has been saying... you are clearly unable to grasp how the law works. The very thing you think proves you right actually disproves your what you called the essence of your argument, genius.

The charge of involuntary manslaughter does not mean the defense can no longer argue that the officers intervening act broke the chain of causation. IMHO, that argument is still at play and the defense should make that a centerpiece.

Ironically, the only thing off the table with the charge of involuntary manslaughter is the defendants intent to kill in making the prank call. I don't think the prosecution can ever bring that up now without prejudicing the jury.

shelbystripes, please stop spamming the thread. You've posted the same sentence more than 10 times. It isn't adding anything to the conversation. It isn't helping convince or inform anybody. I'm sure everyone reading this thread understands that you dislike and disagree with psd. Saying it over and over again isn't useful or helpful. It's juvenile, and annoying.

When there is a conversation with more to add, I will gladly participate. There hasn't been a real conversation of value for many pages now. There's just been one person repeating the same mindless drivel over and over, and a bunch of other posters trying in futility to explain to this person that they clearly do not understand how the law works.

So clearly I'm not interrupting much. I'm just becoming more efficient at this conversation over time, since it really has gotten repetitive.

Speak for yourself. There was a brief but useful exchange on how Summers v Tice can be applied to the facts of this swatting case. The quality of logic and level of argumentation skills demonstrated there was at least a couple of notches above the rest and makes this thread of 1000+ post well worth the read (minus your copy-n-paste tantrum).

It isn't a tantrum. It is a reasoned response to bot-like posts ignoring the substance in the comments.

I am not calling you a bot. I am saying your recognition of the responses you receive makes you appear as if you are one.

The charge of involuntary manslaughter does not mean the defense can no longer argue that the officers intervening act broke the chain of causation. IMHO, that argument is still at play and the defense should make that a centerpiece.

See, this is why you look so foolish. You declared victory because it wasn't murder, and you didn't know enough to realize that the charge of involuntary manslaughter had the same causation problem as murder, meaning you were wrong.

Now, caught, you try to say "well the defense can still argue that it breaks the chain ". Of course, not knowing law, you don't seem to realize that the same is true had they been charged with murder. You've attempted to shift the goalposts and you're STILL wrong.

Quote:

Ironically, the only thing off the table with the charge of involuntary manslaughter is the defendants intent to kill in making the prank call. I don't think the prosecution can ever bring that up now without prejudicing the jury.

Yeah, if you actually knew what you are talking about, you'd know that was never a likely argument in the first place, considering he's done it before without anyone getting hurt. That you thought that was a possible strategy suggests once again that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to law.

Only because it is not the felony murder or 1st or 2nd degree murder or murder-for-hire my ardent fans here were so sure of.

How many people were "so sure" of that, exactly?

Many people were trying to use other examples to show you the general principle that both the cop and the swatter could be held liable, something you argued against repeatedly. I used felony murder to show you that there exists a legal concept where two people can be guilty of murder. Shelby tried to explain it using murder for hire, a concept you are STILL not getting from your masturbatory attempt to compliment yourself .

Honestly, it's a testament to how little you even bothered to process the arguments of others before insisting that they're wrong that you STILL don't understand why they were offered or why they refuted your argument at the time.

Hint: you stated back here that "[t]he essence of my argument is a police officers "intervening act" supersedes a swatters "original act" breaking the chain of causation for whatever death at the hands of the police officer because it is not inevitable that deploying a swat team must result in a death." (emphasis added).

However, despite your attempts to lash out like a child at the people trying to explain things to you, the "involuntary manslaughter" charge maintains the chain of causation. The cop's act didn't break the chain of causation. The fact that it's involuntary manslaughter and not murder is irrelevant to the thing that you yourself claimed was the essence of your argument. If the police officer's act "broke the chain of causation", they wouldn't have charged the swatter with anything related to the death. The fact that they charged him with something related to the death should tell anyone with even half a brain that they are arguing that he caused (at least in part) the death.

So, like Shelby has been saying... you are clearly unable to grasp how the law works. The very thing you think proves you right actually disproves your what you called the essence of your argument, genius.

The charge of involuntary manslaughter does not mean the defense can no longer argue that the officers intervening act broke the chain of causation. IMHO, that argument is still at play and the defense should make that a centerpiece.

Ironically, the only thing off the table with the charge of involuntary manslaughter is the defendants intent to kill in making the prank call. I don't think the prosecution can ever bring that up now without prejudicing the jury.

shelbystripes, please stop spamming the thread. You've posted the same sentence more than 10 times. It isn't adding anything to the conversation. It isn't helping convince or inform anybody. I'm sure everyone reading this thread understands that you dislike and disagree with psd. Saying it over and over again isn't useful or helpful. It's juvenile, and annoying.

When there is a conversation with more to add, I will gladly participate. There hasn't been a real conversation of value for many pages now. There's just been one person repeating the same mindless drivel over and over, and a bunch of other posters trying in futility to explain to this person that they clearly do not understand how the law works.

So clearly I'm not interrupting much. I'm just becoming more efficient at this conversation over time, since it really has gotten repetitive.

Speak for yourself. There was a brief but useful exchange on how Summers v Tice can be applied to the facts of this swatting case. The quality of logic and level of argumentation skills demonstrated there was at least a couple of notches above the rest and makes this thread of 1000+ post well worth the read (minus your copy-n-paste tantrum).

Only because it is not the felony murder or 1st or 2nd degree murder or murder-for-hire my ardent fans here were so sure of.

How many people were "so sure" of that, exactly?

Many people were trying to use other examples to show you the general principle that both the cop and the swatter could be held liable, something you argued against repeatedly. I used felony murder to show you that there exists a legal concept where two people can be guilty of murder. Shelby tried to explain it using murder for hire, a concept you are STILL not getting from your masturbatory attempt to compliment yourself .

Honestly, it's a testament to how little you even bothered to process the arguments of others before insisting that they're wrong that you STILL don't understand why they were offered or why they refuted your argument at the time.

Hint: you stated back here that "[t]he essence of my argument is a police officers "intervening act" supersedes a swatters "original act" breaking the chain of causation for whatever death at the hands of the police officer because it is not inevitable that deploying a swat team must result in a death." (emphasis added).

However, despite your attempts to lash out like a child at the people trying to explain things to you, the "involuntary manslaughter" charge maintains the chain of causation. The cop's act didn't break the chain of causation. The fact that it's involuntary manslaughter and not murder is irrelevant to the thing that you yourself claimed was the essence of your argument. If the police officer's act "broke the chain of causation", they wouldn't have charged the swatter with anything related to the death. The fact that they charged him with something related to the death should tell anyone with even half a brain that they are arguing that he caused (at least in part) the death.

So, like Shelby has been saying... you are clearly unable to grasp how the law works. The very thing you think proves you right actually disproves your what you called the essence of your argument, genius.

The charge of involuntary manslaughter does not mean the defense can no longer argue that the officers intervening act broke the chain of causation. IMHO, that argument is still at play and the defense should make that a centerpiece.

Ironically, the only thing off the table with the charge of involuntary manslaughter is the defendants intent to kill in making the prank call. I don't think the prosecution can ever bring that up now without prejudicing the jury.

You keep bringing up this 'chain of causation', and my point earlier is that an 'intact' chain of causation isn't a prerequisite. And involuntary manslaughter probably mean the prosecution doesn't have to establish intent to kill, just intent to call a swat team in on someone's house.

I don't see much legal basis for them pointing the finger and saying it's all the police's fault. They maybe could still make that argument, but then they're relying on either jury nullification (probably a non-starter as that requires a sympathetic defendant) or the Chewbacca defense (point really hard at the police and hope the jury doesn't understand the legal concepts involved.)

In the article: "Finch appears confused and drops his hands, then a police spotlight shines on him, and he appears to raise his hands again. In the middle of a police officer shouting, "Walk this way!" a second time, a single shot rings out, killing Finch."

How do you know he "appears confused" - from where did you get that he "appears confused"? You can not see the look on his face in the video nor can you hear anything from him in the video. There are no indications of confusion in the video. There is what looks somewhat like a moment of hesitation before the hands go to the waist area.

if you watch the video frame by frame you can see one hand come up slightly before the other then the two hands come together in front of him at head eye level pointing at police. See the dark spot in front of him before the shot was fired, those are the two hands together in front of him (as they would be if one was holding a firearm). The first hand that comes up comes from the waist area, comes around in front of him still continuing to rise the other hands joins it then the two hands are together in front of him at hand eye level then stop pointing out at police for a second and do not continue to rise, then the shot is fired. The movement was deliberate.

He wasn't raising his hands again as in "hands up" as he initially did before lowering his hands then going to waist area. His hands did not come from his sides then straight up as he did initially, they came up then around in front of him and came together. In the video frame by frame you see a dark spot in front of him when the hands stop moving upwards, that's the two hands together in front of him against a lighter colored shirt that is illuminated by the spot light and it very plain to see. Its not until after the hands stop moving and are pointing out at police that the shot is fired.

Frame by frame the movements and stopping place for the hands (before the shot is fired) looks exactly like the quick reaction combat shooting position taught as part of the combat point shooting portion of defensive shooting courses taught to military, law enforcement, and in some courses available to civilians. Basically, In that course the method taught is used while moving (but can be used from a stand still position) and suddenly encountering a very close threat in front of you (thus 'point shooting'), your weapon is drawn quickly from the waist area holster or thigh holster and comes out in front of you into a two hand grasp and the eye blink of time it comes out in front of you and on the close threat target you fire.

So what you're saying is... you can't see enough detail to tell what's going on or his intentions... but you can clearly see that he motioned like he was pointing a gun... and that his intentions were deliberate... and that an unarmed civilian in the doorway of his own home was adopting a combat shooting position... with a gun he didn't have.

Yeah, that makes total sense. I'm so glad you were here to point it out to all of us who missed it!

I never said he actually had a gun or pointed a actual gun.

I never said I could not "see enough detail to tell what's going on or his intentions". Your assuming I can't and that's not true.

I said his movement were deliberate. That's because one hand moves to waist band area ( a favored place to put a gun) then started coming up and around to front of his body then was joined by the other hand, then the hands come together and up in front of him then stop moving upward at about eye/head level then are thrust out towards police - that's a deliberate movement. Its a quick reaction shooting position movement. After the hands stop and are pointing out at police, then the officer fires one round. The officer hesitated until the last possible moment before firing, the hands were not continuing to travel upwards as in "raising his hands", the hands together in a quick reaction shooting movement to what is a common shooting grip manner at head/eye level and stop moving upwards pointed out at police - then the officer fires.

The officer said he believed the man was reaching for a gun (thus believes he has a gun).

The use of deadly force does not always require a weapon be seen first, that's a thing of movies and TV shows that a weapon always has to be seen. Its used in TV shows and movies to link the plot together as to how one thing happens that means another to get from point A to point B and so on. In reality its not real life, its a "sense of fairness' thing in a perfect world but its how an inexperienced and uneducated (in the use of deadly force) public thinks so it seems to make sense and thus the general belief by the public that a weapon must always be seen first. In reality, the use of deadly force to stop deadly force from being used for anyone, even you, hinges on one thing - a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger to life by the hand or actions of another, it does not mean a weapon always has to be seen first.

Police have a call there is a gun, someone has already been shot, hostages - they arrive on scene, encounter this man, give commands several times (the video is not complete and picks up around the time of the screen door opening and the man stepping forward, there were several command attempts previous to this) - he opens the screen door & steps forward - raises his hands in compliance initially, then lowers them, then one hand moves to waist band area then started coming up and around to front of his body where its joined by the other hand, then the hands come together and up in front of him then stop moving upward at about eye/head level then are thrust out towards police. Yeah, I can see where the officer had a reasonable belief the man was armed and was going to shoot - its because the man acted like it.

actually unarmed or not - the man disobeying commands, the mans deliberate movements into what looks like the shooting position I described, with police having the information they already had from the 911 'swatter' caller, formed a reasonable belief. If that reasonable belief was justified or not is an entirely different question that is up to investigation and the law to determine. Basically, in Kansas, and everywhere else in the real world, a reasonable belief of imminent danger to life exists if the "indicators" (apparent or actual) of deadly force which form that reasonable belief are present in such a manner as to make one reasonably fear for their life or the life of another (or as its frequently put by individuals, "I feared for my life" or "I feared for the life of <another>".) Or, basically, as its put in documentation, training, legalities, and viewed by courts - let me introduce you to the real world :

1. Necessity: reasonable belief of an actual or apparent threat of unlawful and immediate force.

2. Proportionality: response must be in proportion to threat or action: Deadly force can only be used in response to deadly force.

3. Reasonable Belief Rule: Actor subjectively/actually believes and, has objective reasonable grounds for believing, that the force used was necessary to repel an imminent attack.

The belief does not have to be accurate, just reasonable. That "reasonable belief" does not require an actual weapon to be seen. From there is up to the specifics of the law and investigation to decide if that "reasonable belief" was justified or not.

yes, I clearly see the movements in frame by frame. Its not "clearly" as in reading this page 'clearly', but frame by frame the movements can be seen. No, the mans face details can not be seen, the mans voice can not be heard, no normally obvious signs of confusion (a look on the face, asking about whats happening, yelling about whats happening, even retreating back into the house, etc...), the mans movements are deliberate. He opens the screen door and steps forward to either standing in the door way or just beyond it - that is not confusion and is a deliberate act also, then the movements into what looks like a shooting position were also a deliberate act.

I've been there and done that, been that officer on scene several times where people have done this type of thing (not complying then acting like they were armed), some were shot (not by me) and some weren't, only one died - some of them were actually armed (although did not show the weapon while 'pretending') and some were not actually armed, and some of them actually showed the weapon, a few of them actually fired a few rounds. One guy told us he just wanted to see what it was like to do that after firing a few rounds at us, he had a small .22 caliber automatic (sometimes called a "lady gun" or "pocket" gun) that we could not see in his hands due to the lighting but there he was firing at us, the muzzle flash and bullet impacts on the cruiser windshield were real, yes he got shot. There are just people like this in the world that would do as this man did, you never know how someone is going to act and you never really know if they are armed or not until proven otherwise and you never know if they are going to actually shoot at you or not. The only way to prove otherwise, unless you have a time machine and can see the future or read minds, is to see for yourself and that's what the police were trying to do by giving him commands to come to them. He did not follow the commands then does what he does as I described.

Maybe the man thought it was being funny, maybe he did not know what was going on, and maybe, as the article says, he was "confused", lots of "maybe's" this or that. Although those "maybe's" might or might not have existed, given the 911 call info and the man doing what he did the officer formed a reasonable belief.

If you want to think "Yeah, that makes total sense. I'm so glad you were here to point it out to all of us who missed it!" - then who ever "all of us" are you are referring to, and you, did miss it. So if I could point out what you and the rest of your "all of us" missed, you're welcome.

Or, basically, as its put in documentation, training, legalities, and viewed by courts - let me introduce you to the real world :

1. Necessity: reasonable belief of an actual or apparent threat of unlawful and immediate force.

2. Proportionality: response must be in proportion to threat or action: Deadly force can only be used in response to deadly force.

3. Reasonable Belief Rule: Actor subjectively/actually believes and, has objective reasonable grounds for believing, that the force used was necessary to repel an imminent attack.

This. This is the heart of the problem. Under current legal doctrine, a police officer's subjective belief is enough to justify use of deadly force. But this isn't really a "reasonable belief" rule and (in my opinion) it's wholly inappropriate to refer to it as such. It does get referred to as such sometimes, but it shouldn't.

Under practically any other facet of the law, a "subjective" belief is not considered a "reasonable" belief, basically by definition. The term "objective" refers to a belief or perception that a reasonable person under the same facts and circumstances would also believe or perceive. The term "subjective" on the other hand means the actual belief or perception of a person regardless of how reasonable it was.

Showing a subjective belief existed does not require showing it was reasonable, only that the cop had it. Which is why the cop always claims after the fact he clearly saw a gun. Even with video evidence that lets us see the situation, under a subjective belief standard, it doesn't matter whether a reasonable person would've thought they saw a gun.

It only matters (and this is the "reasonable grounds" part you mentioned) if the overall scenario was one where a gun could have been seen at all. The swatting call was practically enough to establish that. In that type of scenario, the cop can basically shoot anyone at the scene, claim he thought he saw a gun, and have his behavior completely excused no matter how unreasonable it actually was.

You're right overall, with how you describe the overall legal standard in use today. My main issue is you putting the "reasonable belief" label on it, since the "reasonable belief rule" you describe doesn't require a reasonable belief. That's what a lot of people have issue with, and while that is the law today, not everyone agrees it should be. I sure as hell don't.

Or, basically, as its put in documentation, training, legalities, and viewed by courts - let me introduce you to the real world :

1. Necessity: reasonable belief of an actual or apparent threat of unlawful and immediate force.

2. Proportionality: response must be in proportion to threat or action: Deadly force can only be used in response to deadly force.

3. Reasonable Belief Rule: Actor subjectively/actually believes and, has objective reasonable grounds for believing, that the force used was necessary to repel an imminent attack.

This. This is the heart of the problem. Under current legal doctrine, a police officer's subjective belief is enough to justify use of deadly force. But this isn't really a "reasonable belief" rule and (in my opinion) it's wholly inappropriate to refer to it as such. It does get referred to as such sometimes, but it shouldn't.

Under practically any other facet of the law, a "subjective" belief is not considered a "reasonable" belief, basically by definition. The term "objective" refers to a belief or perception that a reasonable person under the same facts and circumstances would also believe or perceive. The term "subjective" on the other hand means the actual belief or perception of a person regardless of how reasonable it was.

Showing a subjective belief existed does not require showing it was reasonable, only that the cop had it. Which is why the cop always claims after the fact he clearly saw a gun. Even with video evidence that lets us see the situation, under a subjective belief standard, it doesn't matter whether a reasonable person would've thought they saw a gun.

It only matters (and this is the "reasonable grounds" part you mentioned) if the overall scenario was one where a gun could have been seen at all. The swatting call was practically enough to establish that. In that type of scenario, the cop can basically shoot anyone at the scene, claim he thought he saw a gun, and have his behavior completely excused no matter how unreasonable it actually was.

You're right overall, with how you describe the overall legal standard in use today. My main issue is you putting the "reasonable belief" label on it, since the "reasonable belief rule" you describe doesn't require a reasonable belief. That's what a lot of people have issue with, and while that is the law today, not everyone agrees it should be. I sure as hell don't.

I understand your concern.

there is a part I commented that you apparently missed:

Quote:

....From there is up to the specifics of the law and investigation to decide if that "reasonable belief" was justified or not.

I didn't put the "reasonable belief" label on it, I didn't create it, I just used it as it is referred to in terms of use of deadly force necessity.

You misunderstand the 'Reasonable Belief Rule' - its a "rule" to determine if a "reasonable belief" existed that "has objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law. That "objective reasonable grounds" is up to investigation to reveal and then under law specifics to decide. It varies some from state to state law, and even federally. Its called different things, but in the general collective sense its referred to as the 'Reasonable Belief Rule'

Basically, If the "reasonable belief" is found to have been based on "objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law the shooting was justified.

Basically' If the "reasonable belief" is found to have not been based on "objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law the shooting was not justified.

Or, basically, as its put in documentation, training, legalities, and viewed by courts - let me introduce you to the real world :

1. Necessity: reasonable belief of an actual or apparent threat of unlawful and immediate force.

2. Proportionality: response must be in proportion to threat or action: Deadly force can only be used in response to deadly force.

3. Reasonable Belief Rule: Actor subjectively/actually believes and, has objective reasonable grounds for believing, that the force used was necessary to repel an imminent attack.

This. This is the heart of the problem. Under current legal doctrine, a police officer's subjective belief is enough to justify use of deadly force. But this isn't really a "reasonable belief" rule and (in my opinion) it's wholly inappropriate to refer to it as such. It does get referred to as such sometimes, but it shouldn't.

Under practically any other facet of the law, a "subjective" belief is not considered a "reasonable" belief, basically by definition. The term "objective" refers to a belief or perception that a reasonable person under the same facts and circumstances would also believe or perceive. The term "subjective" on the other hand means the actual belief or perception of a person regardless of how reasonable it was.

Showing a subjective belief existed does not require showing it was reasonable, only that the cop had it. Which is why the cop always claims after the fact he clearly saw a gun. Even with video evidence that lets us see the situation, under a subjective belief standard, it doesn't matter whether a reasonable person would've thought they saw a gun.

It only matters (and this is the "reasonable grounds" part you mentioned) if the overall scenario was one where a gun could have been seen at all. The swatting call was practically enough to establish that. In that type of scenario, the cop can basically shoot anyone at the scene, claim he thought he saw a gun, and have his behavior completely excused no matter how unreasonable it actually was.

You're right overall, with how you describe the overall legal standard in use today. My main issue is you putting the "reasonable belief" label on it, since the "reasonable belief rule" you describe doesn't require a reasonable belief. That's what a lot of people have issue with, and while that is the law today, not everyone agrees it should be. I sure as hell don't.

I understand your concern.

there is a part I commented that you apparently missed:

Quote:

....From there is up to the specifics of the law and investigation to decide if that "reasonable belief" was justified or not.

I didn't put the "reasonable belief" label on it, I didn't create it, I just used it as it is referred to in terms of use of deadly force necessity.

You misunderstand the 'Reasonable Belief Rule' - its a "rule" to determine if a "reasonable belief" existed that "has objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law. That "objective reasonable grounds" is up to investigation to reveal and then under law specifics to decide. It varies some from state to state law, and even federally. Its called different things, but in the general collective sense its referred to as the 'Reasonable Belief Rule'

Basically, If the "reasonable belief" is found to have been based on "objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law the shooting was justified.

Basically' If the "reasonable belief" is found to have not been based on "objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law the shooting was not justified.

I know you didn't invent the rule. I know you didn't create it. I was agreeing with your description of it as accurate; you did summarize the current state of the law.

I just object (to you, and to anyone else who does this) to labeling it the "reasonable belief rule", because it is based on the officer's subjective belief, not any sort of objective ("reasonable person") standard. The label is a misnomer. It does not actually describe a rule based on reasonable belief, and therefore ahould not be called a "reasonable belief rule".

To be clear, I'm not saying the rule should be renamed. I'm saying the rule should be scrapped and replaced with a rule that is actually based on an objective, reasonable belief standard. I don't care what it's called as long as it's a better rule than the rule we have today.

Or, basically, as its put in documentation, training, legalities, and viewed by courts - let me introduce you to the real world :

1. Necessity: reasonable belief of an actual or apparent threat of unlawful and immediate force.

2. Proportionality: response must be in proportion to threat or action: Deadly force can only be used in response to deadly force.

3. Reasonable Belief Rule: Actor subjectively/actually believes and, has objective reasonable grounds for believing, that the force used was necessary to repel an imminent attack.

This. This is the heart of the problem. Under current legal doctrine, a police officer's subjective belief is enough to justify use of deadly force. But this isn't really a "reasonable belief" rule and (in my opinion) it's wholly inappropriate to refer to it as such. It does get referred to as such sometimes, but it shouldn't.

Under practically any other facet of the law, a "subjective" belief is not considered a "reasonable" belief, basically by definition. The term "objective" refers to a belief or perception that a reasonable person under the same facts and circumstances would also believe or perceive. The term "subjective" on the other hand means the actual belief or perception of a person regardless of how reasonable it was.

Showing a subjective belief existed does not require showing it was reasonable, only that the cop had it. Which is why the cop always claims after the fact he clearly saw a gun. Even with video evidence that lets us see the situation, under a subjective belief standard, it doesn't matter whether a reasonable person would've thought they saw a gun.

It only matters (and this is the "reasonable grounds" part you mentioned) if the overall scenario was one where a gun could have been seen at all. The swatting call was practically enough to establish that. In that type of scenario, the cop can basically shoot anyone at the scene, claim he thought he saw a gun, and have his behavior completely excused no matter how unreasonable it actually was.

You're right overall, with how you describe the overall legal standard in use today. My main issue is you putting the "reasonable belief" label on it, since the "reasonable belief rule" you describe doesn't require a reasonable belief. That's what a lot of people have issue with, and while that is the law today, not everyone agrees it should be. I sure as hell don't.

I understand your concern.

there is a part I commented that you apparently missed:

Quote:

....From there is up to the specifics of the law and investigation to decide if that "reasonable belief" was justified or not.

I didn't put the "reasonable belief" label on it, I didn't create it, I just used it as it is referred to in terms of use of deadly force necessity.

You misunderstand the 'Reasonable Belief Rule' - its a "rule" to determine if a "reasonable belief" existed that "has objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law. That "objective reasonable grounds" is up to investigation to reveal and then under law specifics to decide. It varies some from state to state law, and even federally. Its called different things, but in the general collective sense its referred to as the 'Reasonable Belief Rule'

Basically, If the "reasonable belief" is found to have been based on "objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law the shooting was justified.

Basically' If the "reasonable belief" is found to have not been based on "objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law the shooting was not justified.

And the 'Blue Wall' goes up and any belief is deemed reasonable almost automatically. Unless you are an officer unfortunate to have your activities video recorded by civilians. Even then 90% chance you get off, although you 'might' get fired.

The charge of involuntary manslaughter does not mean the defense can no longer argue that the officers intervening act broke the chain of causation. IMHO, that argument is still at play and the defense should make that a centerpiece.

See, this is why you look so foolish. You declared victory because it wasn't murder, and you didn't know enough to realize that the charge of involuntary manslaughter had the same causation problem as murder, meaning you were wrong.

Now, caught, you try to say "well the defense can still argue that it breaks the chain ". Of course, not knowing law, you don't seem to realize that the same is true had they been charged with murder. You've attempted to shift the goalposts and you're STILL wrong.

Quote:

Ironically, the only thing off the table with the charge of involuntary manslaughter is the defendants intent to kill in making the prank call. I don't think the prosecution can ever bring that up now without prejudicing the jury.

Yeah, if you actually knew what you are talking about, you'd know that was never a likely argument in the first place, considering he's done it before without anyone getting hurt. That you thought that was a possible strategy suggests once again that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to law.

Just because the spot of the football has shifted does not mean the goalpost has shifted. The main difference is intent. Everyone here was so sure of the caller's intent to kill and that is what has animated many in this thread.

All the while I was always curious about causation, of original acts and intervening acts, particularly as it applies in Kansas. This is why I only declared a partial win when the involuntary manslaughter charge was announced. So, no. You've caught me doing nothing with the goalpost.

Only because it is not the felony murder or 1st or 2nd degree murder or murder-for-hire my ardent fans here were so sure of.

How many people were "so sure" of that, exactly?

Many people were trying to use other examples to show you the general principle that both the cop and the swatter could be held liable, something you argued against repeatedly. I used felony murder to show you that there exists a legal concept where two people can be guilty of murder. Shelby tried to explain it using murder for hire, a concept you are STILL not getting from your masturbatory attempt to compliment yourself .

Honestly, it's a testament to how little you even bothered to process the arguments of others before insisting that they're wrong that you STILL don't understand why they were offered or why they refuted your argument at the time.

Hint: you stated back here that "[t]he essence of my argument is a police officers "intervening act" supersedes a swatters "original act" breaking the chain of causation for whatever death at the hands of the police officer because it is not inevitable that deploying a swat team must result in a death." (emphasis added).

However, despite your attempts to lash out like a child at the people trying to explain things to you, the "involuntary manslaughter" charge maintains the chain of causation. The cop's act didn't break the chain of causation. The fact that it's involuntary manslaughter and not murder is irrelevant to the thing that you yourself claimed was the essence of your argument. If the police officer's act "broke the chain of causation", they wouldn't have charged the swatter with anything related to the death. The fact that they charged him with something related to the death should tell anyone with even half a brain that they are arguing that he caused (at least in part) the death.

So, like Shelby has been saying... you are clearly unable to grasp how the law works. The very thing you think proves you right actually disproves your what you called the essence of your argument, genius.

The charge of involuntary manslaughter does not mean the defense can no longer argue that the officers intervening act broke the chain of causation. IMHO, that argument is still at play and the defense should make that a centerpiece.

Ironically, the only thing off the table with the charge of involuntary manslaughter is the defendants intent to kill in making the prank call. I don't think the prosecution can ever bring that up now without prejudicing the jury.

You keep bringing up this 'chain of causation', and my point earlier is that an 'intact' chain of causation isn't a prerequisite. And involuntary manslaughter probably mean the prosecution doesn't have to establish intent to kill, just intent to call a swat team in on someone's house.

I don't see much legal basis for them pointing the finger and saying it's all the police's fault. They maybe could still make that argument, but then they're relying on either jury nullification (probably a non-starter as that requires a sympathetic defendant) or the Chewbacca defense (point really hard at the police and hope the jury doesn't understand the legal concepts involved.)

We shall see how the defense plays their hand. Like I've been saying, running a stop sign and killing someone is very different from lying in wait for an ambush and killing someone. IANAL but that might be something in Kansas.

shelbystripes, please stop spamming the thread. You've posted the same sentence more than 10 times. It isn't adding anything to the conversation. It isn't helping convince or inform anybody. I'm sure everyone reading this thread understands that you dislike and disagree with psd. Saying it over and over again isn't useful or helpful. It's juvenile, and annoying.

When there is a conversation with more to add, I will gladly participate. There hasn't been a real conversation of value for many pages now. There's just been one person repeating the same mindless drivel over and over, and a bunch of other posters trying in futility to explain to this person that they clearly do not understand how the law works.

So clearly I'm not interrupting much. I'm just becoming more efficient at this conversation over time, since it really has gotten repetitive.

Speak for yourself. There was a brief but useful exchange on how Summers v Tice can be applied to the facts of this swatting case. The quality of logic and level of argumentation skills demonstrated there was at least a couple of notches above the rest and makes this thread of 1000+ post well worth the read (minus your copy-n-paste tantrum).

It isn't a tantrum. It is a reasoned response to bot-like posts ignoring the substance in the comments.

I am not calling you a bot. I am saying your recognition of the responses you receive makes you appear as if you are one.

Adjust as you see fit.

Has it ever occurred to you that the problem is with the quality of the responses I have received and not in my ability to recognize process responses? I mean after all I have demonstrated the capacity to understand a scant handful of responses in this very thread.

None of them from you of course; but then you think a copy-n-paste fusillade of content free text is a "reasoned response".

The charge of involuntary manslaughter does not mean the defense can no longer argue that the officers intervening act broke the chain of causation. IMHO, that argument is still at play and the defense should make that a centerpiece.

See, this is why you look so foolish. You declared victory because it wasn't murder, and you didn't know enough to realize that the charge of involuntary manslaughter had the same causation problem as murder, meaning you were wrong.

Now, caught, you try to say "well the defense can still argue that it breaks the chain ". Of course, not knowing law, you don't seem to realize that the same is true had they been charged with murder. You've attempted to shift the goalposts and you're STILL wrong.

Quote:

Ironically, the only thing off the table with the charge of involuntary manslaughter is the defendants intent to kill in making the prank call. I don't think the prosecution can ever bring that up now without prejudicing the jury.

Yeah, if you actually knew what you are talking about, you'd know that was never a likely argument in the first place, considering he's done it before without anyone getting hurt. That you thought that was a possible strategy suggests once again that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to law.

Just because the spot of the football has shifted does not mean the goalpost has shifted. The main difference is intent. Everyone here was so sure of the caller's intent to kill and that is what has animated many in this thread.

All the while I was always curious about causation, of original acts and intervening acts, particularly as it applies in Kansas. This is why I only declared a partial win when the involuntary manslaughter charge was announced. So, no. You've caught me doing nothing with the goalpost.

Only because it is not the felony murder or 1st or 2nd degree murder or murder-for-hire my ardent fans here were so sure of.

How many people were "so sure" of that, exactly?

Many people were trying to use other examples to show you the general principle that both the cop and the swatter could be held liable, something you argued against repeatedly. I used felony murder to show you that there exists a legal concept where two people can be guilty of murder. Shelby tried to explain it using murder for hire, a concept you are STILL not getting from your masturbatory attempt to compliment yourself .

Honestly, it's a testament to how little you even bothered to process the arguments of others before insisting that they're wrong that you STILL don't understand why they were offered or why they refuted your argument at the time.

Hint: you stated back here that "[t]he essence of my argument is a police officers "intervening act" supersedes a swatters "original act" breaking the chain of causation for whatever death at the hands of the police officer because it is not inevitable that deploying a swat team must result in a death." (emphasis added).

However, despite your attempts to lash out like a child at the people trying to explain things to you, the "involuntary manslaughter" charge maintains the chain of causation. The cop's act didn't break the chain of causation. The fact that it's involuntary manslaughter and not murder is irrelevant to the thing that you yourself claimed was the essence of your argument. If the police officer's act "broke the chain of causation", they wouldn't have charged the swatter with anything related to the death. The fact that they charged him with something related to the death should tell anyone with even half a brain that they are arguing that he caused (at least in part) the death.

So, like Shelby has been saying... you are clearly unable to grasp how the law works. The very thing you think proves you right actually disproves your what you called the essence of your argument, genius.

The charge of involuntary manslaughter does not mean the defense can no longer argue that the officers intervening act broke the chain of causation. IMHO, that argument is still at play and the defense should make that a centerpiece.

Ironically, the only thing off the table with the charge of involuntary manslaughter is the defendants intent to kill in making the prank call. I don't think the prosecution can ever bring that up now without prejudicing the jury.

You keep bringing up this 'chain of causation', and my point earlier is that an 'intact' chain of causation isn't a prerequisite. And involuntary manslaughter probably mean the prosecution doesn't have to establish intent to kill, just intent to call a swat team in on someone's house.

I don't see much legal basis for them pointing the finger and saying it's all the police's fault. They maybe could still make that argument, but then they're relying on either jury nullification (probably a non-starter as that requires a sympathetic defendant) or the Chewbacca defense (point really hard at the police and hope the jury doesn't understand the legal concepts involved.)

We shall see how the defense plays their hand. Like I've been saying, running a stop sign and killing someone is very different from lying in wait for an ambush and killing someone. IANAL but that might be something in Kansas.

shelbystripes, please stop spamming the thread. You've posted the same sentence more than 10 times. It isn't adding anything to the conversation. It isn't helping convince or inform anybody. I'm sure everyone reading this thread understands that you dislike and disagree with psd. Saying it over and over again isn't useful or helpful. It's juvenile, and annoying.

When there is a conversation with more to add, I will gladly participate. There hasn't been a real conversation of value for many pages now. There's just been one person repeating the same mindless drivel over and over, and a bunch of other posters trying in futility to explain to this person that they clearly do not understand how the law works.

So clearly I'm not interrupting much. I'm just becoming more efficient at this conversation over time, since it really has gotten repetitive.

Speak for yourself. There was a brief but useful exchange on how Summers v Tice can be applied to the facts of this swatting case. The quality of logic and level of argumentation skills demonstrated there was at least a couple of notches above the rest and makes this thread of 1000+ post well worth the read (minus your copy-n-paste tantrum).

It isn't a tantrum. It is a reasoned response to bot-like posts ignoring the substance in the comments.

I am not calling you a bot. I am saying your recognition of the responses you receive makes you appear as if you are one.

Adjust as you see fit.

Has it ever occurred to you that the problem is with the quality of the responses I have received and not in my ability to recognize process responses? I mean after all I have demonstrated the capacity to understand a scant handful of responses in this very thread.

None of them from you of course; but then you think a copy-n-paste fusillade of content free text is a "reasoned response".

In the article: "Finch appears confused and drops his hands, then a police spotlight shines on him, and he appears to raise his hands again. In the middle of a police officer shouting, "Walk this way!" a second time, a single shot rings out, killing Finch."

How do you know he "appears confused" - from where did you get that he "appears confused"? You can not see the look on his face in the video nor can you hear anything from him in the video. There are no indications of confusion in the video. There is what looks somewhat like a moment of hesitation before the hands go to the waist area.

if you watch the video frame by frame you can see one hand come up slightly before the other then the two hands come together in front of him at head eye level pointing at police. See the dark spot in front of him before the shot was fired, those are the two hands together in front of him (as they would be if one was holding a firearm). The first hand that comes up comes from the waist area, comes around in front of him still continuing to rise the other hands joins it then the two hands are together in front of him at hand eye level then stop pointing out at police for a second and do not continue to rise, then the shot is fired. The movement was deliberate.

He wasn't raising his hands again as in "hands up" as he initially did before lowering his hands then going to waist area. His hands did not come from his sides then straight up as he did initially, they came up then around in front of him and came together. In the video frame by frame you see a dark spot in front of him when the hands stop moving upwards, that's the two hands together in front of him against a lighter colored shirt that is illuminated by the spot light and it very plain to see. Its not until after the hands stop moving and are pointing out at police that the shot is fired.

Frame by frame the movements and stopping place for the hands (before the shot is fired) looks exactly like the quick reaction combat shooting position taught as part of the combat point shooting portion of defensive shooting courses taught to military, law enforcement, and in some courses available to civilians. Basically, In that course the method taught is used while moving (but can be used from a stand still position) and suddenly encountering a very close threat in front of you (thus 'point shooting'), your weapon is drawn quickly from the waist area holster or thigh holster and comes out in front of you into a two hand grasp and the eye blink of time it comes out in front of you and on the close threat target you fire.

So what you're saying is... you can't see enough detail to tell what's going on or his intentions... but you can clearly see that he motioned like he was pointing a gun... and that his intentions were deliberate... and that an unarmed civilian in the doorway of his own home was adopting a combat shooting position... with a gun he didn't have.

Yeah, that makes total sense. I'm so glad you were here to point it out to all of us who missed it!

I never said he actually had a gun or pointed a actual gun.

I never said I could not "see enough detail to tell what's going on or his intentions". Your assuming I can't and that's not true.

I said his movement were deliberate. That's because one hand moves to waist band area ( a favored place to put a gun) then started coming up and around to front of his body then was joined by the other hand, then the hands come together and up in front of him then stop moving upward at about eye/head level then are thrust out towards police - that's a deliberate movement. Its a quick reaction shooting position movement. After the hands stop and are pointing out at police, then the officer fires one round. The officer hesitated until the last possible moment before firing, the hands were not continuing to travel upwards as in "raising his hands", the hands together in a quick reaction shooting movement to what is a common shooting grip manner at head/eye level and stop moving upwards pointed out at police - then the officer fires.

The officer said he believed the man was reaching for a gun (thus believes he has a gun).

The use of deadly force does not always require a weapon be seen first, that's a thing of movies and TV shows that a weapon always has to be seen. Its used in TV shows and movies to link the plot together as to how one thing happens that means another to get from point A to point B and so on. In reality its not real life, its a "sense of fairness' thing in a perfect world but its how an inexperienced and uneducated (in the use of deadly force) public thinks so it seems to make sense and thus the general belief by the public that a weapon must always be seen first. In reality, the use of deadly force to stop deadly force from being used for anyone, even you, hinges on one thing - a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger to life by the hand or actions of another, it does not mean a weapon always has to be seen first.

Police have a call there is a gun, someone has already been shot, hostages - they arrive on scene, encounter this man, give commands several times (the video is not complete and picks up around the time of the screen door opening and the man stepping forward, there were several command attempts previous to this) - he opens the screen door & steps forward - raises his hands in compliance initially, then lowers them, then one hand moves to waist band area then started coming up and around to front of his body where its joined by the other hand, then the hands come together and up in front of him then stop moving upward at about eye/head level then are thrust out towards police. Yeah, I can see where the officer had a reasonable belief the man was armed and was going to shoot - its because the man acted like it.

actually unarmed or not - the man disobeying commands, the mans deliberate movements into what looks like the shooting position I described, with police having the information they already had from the 911 'swatter' caller, formed a reasonable belief. If that reasonable belief was justified or not is an entirely different question that is up to investigation and the law to determine. Basically, in Kansas, and everywhere else in the real world, a reasonable belief of imminent danger to life exists if the "indicators" (apparent or actual) of deadly force which form that reasonable belief are present in such a manner as to make one reasonably fear for their life or the life of another (or as its frequently put by individuals, "I feared for my life" or "I feared for the life of <another>".) Or, basically, as its put in documentation, training, legalities, and viewed by courts - let me introduce you to the real world :

1. Necessity: reasonable belief of an actual or apparent threat of unlawful and immediate force.

2. Proportionality: response must be in proportion to threat or action: Deadly force can only be used in response to deadly force.

3. Reasonable Belief Rule: Actor subjectively/actually believes and, has objective reasonable grounds for believing, that the force used was necessary to repel an imminent attack.

The belief does not have to be accurate, just reasonable. That "reasonable belief" does not require an actual weapon to be seen. From there is up to the specifics of the law and investigation to decide if that "reasonable belief" was justified or not.

yes, I clearly see the movements in frame by frame. Its not "clearly" as in reading this page 'clearly', but frame by frame the movements can be seen. No, the mans face details can not be seen, the mans voice can not be heard, no normally obvious signs of confusion (a look on the face, asking about whats happening, yelling about whats happening, even retreating back into the house, etc...), the mans movements are deliberate. He opens the screen door and steps forward to either standing in the door way or just beyond it - that is not confusion and is a deliberate act also, then the movements into what looks like a shooting position were also a deliberate act.

I've been there and done that, been that officer on scene several times where people have done this type of thing (not complying then acting like they were armed), some were shot (not by me) and some weren't, only one died - some of them were actually armed (although did not show the weapon while 'pretending') and some were not actually armed, and some of them actually showed the weapon, a few of them actually fired a few rounds. One guy told us he just wanted to see what it was like to do that after firing a few rounds at us, he had a small .22 caliber automatic (sometimes called a "lady gun" or "pocket" gun) that we could not see in his hands due to the lighting but there he was firing at us, the muzzle flash and bullet impacts on the cruiser windshield were real, yes he got shot. There are just people like this in the world that would do as this man did, you never know how someone is going to act and you never really know if they are armed or not until proven otherwise and you never know if they are going to actually shoot at you or not. The only way to prove otherwise, unless you have a time machine and can see the future or read minds, is to see for yourself and that's what the police were trying to do by giving him commands to come to them. He did not follow the commands then does what he does as I described.

Maybe the man thought it was being funny, maybe he did not know what was going on, and maybe, as the article says, he was "confused", lots of "maybe's" this or that. Although those "maybe's" might or might not have existed, given the 911 call info and the man doing what he did the officer formed a reasonable belief.

If you want to think "Yeah, that makes total sense. I'm so glad you were here to point it out to all of us who missed it!" - then who ever "all of us" are you are referring to, and you, did miss it. So if I could point out what you and the rest of your "all of us" missed, you're welcome.

The problem with your "reasonable belief" rule is that it is a very low threshold for establishing that belief. That threshold might be fine for untrained civilians but not for badge wearing professionals. For them the community expects the threshold to be more toward accurate than merely reasonable in establishing their belief of a threat.

The demand toward accuracy justifies the sweeping authorities that come with a badge.

In the article: "Finch appears confused and drops his hands, then a police spotlight shines on him, and he appears to raise his hands again. In the middle of a police officer shouting, "Walk this way!" a second time, a single shot rings out, killing Finch."

How do you know he "appears confused" - from where did you get that he "appears confused"? You can not see the look on his face in the video nor can you hear anything from him in the video. There are no indications of confusion in the video. There is what looks somewhat like a moment of hesitation before the hands go to the waist area.

if you watch the video frame by frame you can see one hand come up slightly before the other then the two hands come together in front of him at head eye level pointing at police. See the dark spot in front of him before the shot was fired, those are the two hands together in front of him (as they would be if one was holding a firearm). The first hand that comes up comes from the waist area, comes around in front of him still continuing to rise the other hands joins it then the two hands are together in front of him at hand eye level then stop pointing out at police for a second and do not continue to rise, then the shot is fired. The movement was deliberate.

He wasn't raising his hands again as in "hands up" as he initially did before lowering his hands then going to waist area. His hands did not come from his sides then straight up as he did initially, they came up then around in front of him and came together. In the video frame by frame you see a dark spot in front of him when the hands stop moving upwards, that's the two hands together in front of him against a lighter colored shirt that is illuminated by the spot light and it very plain to see. Its not until after the hands stop moving and are pointing out at police that the shot is fired.

Frame by frame the movements and stopping place for the hands (before the shot is fired) looks exactly like the quick reaction combat shooting position taught as part of the combat point shooting portion of defensive shooting courses taught to military, law enforcement, and in some courses available to civilians. Basically, In that course the method taught is used while moving (but can be used from a stand still position) and suddenly encountering a very close threat in front of you (thus 'point shooting'), your weapon is drawn quickly from the waist area holster or thigh holster and comes out in front of you into a two hand grasp and the eye blink of time it comes out in front of you and on the close threat target you fire.

So what you're saying is... you can't see enough detail to tell what's going on or his intentions... but you can clearly see that he motioned like he was pointing a gun... and that his intentions were deliberate... and that an unarmed civilian in the doorway of his own home was adopting a combat shooting position... with a gun he didn't have.

Yeah, that makes total sense. I'm so glad you were here to point it out to all of us who missed it!

I never said he actually had a gun or pointed a actual gun.

I never said I could not "see enough detail to tell what's going on or his intentions". Your assuming I can't and that's not true.

I said his movement were deliberate. That's because one hand moves to waist band area ( a favored place to put a gun) then started coming up and around to front of his body then was joined by the other hand, then the hands come together and up in front of him then stop moving upward at about eye/head level then are thrust out towards police - that's a deliberate movement. Its a quick reaction shooting position movement. After the hands stop and are pointing out at police, then the officer fires one round. The officer hesitated until the last possible moment before firing, the hands were not continuing to travel upwards as in "raising his hands", the hands together in a quick reaction shooting movement to what is a common shooting grip manner at head/eye level and stop moving upwards pointed out at police - then the officer fires.

The officer said he believed the man was reaching for a gun (thus believes he has a gun).

The use of deadly force does not always require a weapon be seen first, that's a thing of movies and TV shows that a weapon always has to be seen. Its used in TV shows and movies to link the plot together as to how one thing happens that means another to get from point A to point B and so on. In reality its not real life, its a "sense of fairness' thing in a perfect world but its how an inexperienced and uneducated (in the use of deadly force) public thinks so it seems to make sense and thus the general belief by the public that a weapon must always be seen first. In reality, the use of deadly force to stop deadly force from being used for anyone, even you, hinges on one thing - a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger to life by the hand or actions of another, it does not mean a weapon always has to be seen first.

Police have a call there is a gun, someone has already been shot, hostages - they arrive on scene, encounter this man, give commands several times (the video is not complete and picks up around the time of the screen door opening and the man stepping forward, there were several command attempts previous to this) - he opens the screen door & steps forward - raises his hands in compliance initially, then lowers them, then one hand moves to waist band area then started coming up and around to front of his body where its joined by the other hand, then the hands come together and up in front of him then stop moving upward at about eye/head level then are thrust out towards police. Yeah, I can see where the officer had a reasonable belief the man was armed and was going to shoot - its because the man acted like it.

actually unarmed or not - the man disobeying commands, the mans deliberate movements into what looks like the shooting position I described, with police having the information they already had from the 911 'swatter' caller, formed a reasonable belief. If that reasonable belief was justified or not is an entirely different question that is up to investigation and the law to determine. Basically, in Kansas, and everywhere else in the real world, a reasonable belief of imminent danger to life exists if the "indicators" (apparent or actual) of deadly force which form that reasonable belief are present in such a manner as to make one reasonably fear for their life or the life of another (or as its frequently put by individuals, "I feared for my life" or "I feared for the life of <another>".) Or, basically, as its put in documentation, training, legalities, and viewed by courts - let me introduce you to the real world :

1. Necessity: reasonable belief of an actual or apparent threat of unlawful and immediate force.

2. Proportionality: response must be in proportion to threat or action: Deadly force can only be used in response to deadly force.

3. Reasonable Belief Rule: Actor subjectively/actually believes and, has objective reasonable grounds for believing, that the force used was necessary to repel an imminent attack.

The belief does not have to be accurate, just reasonable. That "reasonable belief" does not require an actual weapon to be seen. From there is up to the specifics of the law and investigation to decide if that "reasonable belief" was justified or not.

yes, I clearly see the movements in frame by frame. Its not "clearly" as in reading this page 'clearly', but frame by frame the movements can be seen. No, the mans face details can not be seen, the mans voice can not be heard, no normally obvious signs of confusion (a look on the face, asking about whats happening, yelling about whats happening, even retreating back into the house, etc...), the mans movements are deliberate. He opens the screen door and steps forward to either standing in the door way or just beyond it - that is not confusion and is a deliberate act also, then the movements into what looks like a shooting position were also a deliberate act.

I've been there and done that, been that officer on scene several times where people have done this type of thing (not complying then acting like they were armed), some were shot (not by me) and some weren't, only one died - some of them were actually armed (although did not show the weapon while 'pretending') and some were not actually armed, and some of them actually showed the weapon, a few of them actually fired a few rounds. One guy told us he just wanted to see what it was like to do that after firing a few rounds at us, he had a small .22 caliber automatic (sometimes called a "lady gun" or "pocket" gun) that we could not see in his hands due to the lighting but there he was firing at us, the muzzle flash and bullet impacts on the cruiser windshield were real, yes he got shot. There are just people like this in the world that would do as this man did, you never know how someone is going to act and you never really know if they are armed or not until proven otherwise and you never know if they are going to actually shoot at you or not. The only way to prove otherwise, unless you have a time machine and can see the future or read minds, is to see for yourself and that's what the police were trying to do by giving him commands to come to them. He did not follow the commands then does what he does as I described.

Maybe the man thought it was being funny, maybe he did not know what was going on, and maybe, as the article says, he was "confused", lots of "maybe's" this or that. Although those "maybe's" might or might not have existed, given the 911 call info and the man doing what he did the officer formed a reasonable belief.

If you want to think "Yeah, that makes total sense. I'm so glad you were here to point it out to all of us who missed it!" - then who ever "all of us" are you are referring to, and you, did miss it. So if I could point out what you and the rest of your "all of us" missed, you're welcome.

The problem with your "reasonable belief" rule is that it is a very low threshold for establishing that belief. That threshold might be fine for untrained civilians but not for badge wearing professionals. For them the community expects the threshold to be more toward accurate than merely reasonable in establishing their belief of a threat.

The demand toward accuracy justifies the sweeping authorities that come with a badge.

Or, basically, as its put in documentation, training, legalities, and viewed by courts - let me introduce you to the real world :

1. Necessity: reasonable belief of an actual or apparent threat of unlawful and immediate force.

2. Proportionality: response must be in proportion to threat or action: Deadly force can only be used in response to deadly force.

3. Reasonable Belief Rule: Actor subjectively/actually believes and, has objective reasonable grounds for believing, that the force used was necessary to repel an imminent attack.

This. This is the heart of the problem. Under current legal doctrine, a police officer's subjective belief is enough to justify use of deadly force. But this isn't really a "reasonable belief" rule and (in my opinion) it's wholly inappropriate to refer to it as such. It does get referred to as such sometimes, but it shouldn't.

Under practically any other facet of the law, a "subjective" belief is not considered a "reasonable" belief, basically by definition. The term "objective" refers to a belief or perception that a reasonable person under the same facts and circumstances would also believe or perceive. The term "subjective" on the other hand means the actual belief or perception of a person regardless of how reasonable it was.

Showing a subjective belief existed does not require showing it was reasonable, only that the cop had it. Which is why the cop always claims after the fact he clearly saw a gun. Even with video evidence that lets us see the situation, under a subjective belief standard, it doesn't matter whether a reasonable person would've thought they saw a gun.

It only matters (and this is the "reasonable grounds" part you mentioned) if the overall scenario was one where a gun could have been seen at all. The swatting call was practically enough to establish that. In that type of scenario, the cop can basically shoot anyone at the scene, claim he thought he saw a gun, and have his behavior completely excused no matter how unreasonable it actually was.

You're right overall, with how you describe the overall legal standard in use today. My main issue is you putting the "reasonable belief" label on it, since the "reasonable belief rule" you describe doesn't require a reasonable belief. That's what a lot of people have issue with, and while that is the law today, not everyone agrees it should be. I sure as hell don't.

I understand your concern.

there is a part I commented that you apparently missed:

Quote:

....From there is up to the specifics of the law and investigation to decide if that "reasonable belief" was justified or not.

I didn't put the "reasonable belief" label on it, I didn't create it, I just used it as it is referred to in terms of use of deadly force necessity.

You misunderstand the 'Reasonable Belief Rule' - its a "rule" to determine if a "reasonable belief" existed that "has objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law. That "objective reasonable grounds" is up to investigation to reveal and then under law specifics to decide. It varies some from state to state law, and even federally. Its called different things, but in the general collective sense its referred to as the 'Reasonable Belief Rule'

Basically, If the "reasonable belief" is found to have been based on "objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law the shooting was justified.

Basically' If the "reasonable belief" is found to have not been based on "objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law the shooting was not justified.

I know you didn't invent the rule. I know you didn't create it. I was agreeing with your description of it as accurate; you did summarize the current state of the law.

I just object (to you, and to anyone else who does this) to labeling it the "reasonable belief rule", because it is based on the officer's subjective belief, not any sort of objective ("reasonable person") standard. The label is a misnomer. It does not actually describe a rule based on reasonable belief, and therefore ahould not be called a "reasonable belief rule".

To be clear, I'm not saying the rule should be renamed. I'm saying the rule should be scrapped and replaced with a rule that is actually based on an objective, reasonable belief standard. I don't care what it's called as long as it's a better rule than the rule we have today.

Or, basically, as its put in documentation, training, legalities, and viewed by courts - let me introduce you to the real world :

1. Necessity: reasonable belief of an actual or apparent threat of unlawful and immediate force.

2. Proportionality: response must be in proportion to threat or action: Deadly force can only be used in response to deadly force.

3. Reasonable Belief Rule: Actor subjectively/actually believes and, has objective reasonable grounds for believing, that the force used was necessary to repel an imminent attack.

This. This is the heart of the problem. Under current legal doctrine, a police officer's subjective belief is enough to justify use of deadly force. But this isn't really a "reasonable belief" rule and (in my opinion) it's wholly inappropriate to refer to it as such. It does get referred to as such sometimes, but it shouldn't.

Under practically any other facet of the law, a "subjective" belief is not considered a "reasonable" belief, basically by definition. The term "objective" refers to a belief or perception that a reasonable person under the same facts and circumstances would also believe or perceive. The term "subjective" on the other hand means the actual belief or perception of a person regardless of how reasonable it was.

Showing a subjective belief existed does not require showing it was reasonable, only that the cop had it. Which is why the cop always claims after the fact he clearly saw a gun. Even with video evidence that lets us see the situation, under a subjective belief standard, it doesn't matter whether a reasonable person would've thought they saw a gun.

It only matters (and this is the "reasonable grounds" part you mentioned) if the overall scenario was one where a gun could have been seen at all. The swatting call was practically enough to establish that. In that type of scenario, the cop can basically shoot anyone at the scene, claim he thought he saw a gun, and have his behavior completely excused no matter how unreasonable it actually was.

You're right overall, with how you describe the overall legal standard in use today. My main issue is you putting the "reasonable belief" label on it, since the "reasonable belief rule" you describe doesn't require a reasonable belief. That's what a lot of people have issue with, and while that is the law today, not everyone agrees it should be. I sure as hell don't.

I understand your concern.

there is a part I commented that you apparently missed:

Quote:

....From there is up to the specifics of the law and investigation to decide if that "reasonable belief" was justified or not.

I didn't put the "reasonable belief" label on it, I didn't create it, I just used it as it is referred to in terms of use of deadly force necessity.

You misunderstand the 'Reasonable Belief Rule' - its a "rule" to determine if a "reasonable belief" existed that "has objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law. That "objective reasonable grounds" is up to investigation to reveal and then under law specifics to decide. It varies some from state to state law, and even federally. Its called different things, but in the general collective sense its referred to as the 'Reasonable Belief Rule'

Basically, If the "reasonable belief" is found to have been based on "objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law the shooting was justified.

Basically' If the "reasonable belief" is found to have not been based on "objective reasonable grounds" as decided under law the shooting was not justified.

I know you didn't invent the rule. I know you didn't create it. I was agreeing with your description of it as accurate; you did summarize the current state of the law.

I just object (to you, and to anyone else who does this) to labeling it the "reasonable belief rule", because it is based on the officer's subjective belief, not any sort of objective ("reasonable person") standard. The label is a misnomer. It does not actually describe a rule based on reasonable belief, and therefore ahould not be called a "reasonable belief rule".

To be clear, I'm not saying the rule should be renamed. I'm saying the rule should be scrapped and replaced with a rule that is actually based on an objective, reasonable belief standard. I don't care what it's called as long as it's a better rule than the rule we have today.